lklawson
Grandmaster
Not because I expect you to pay attention or to actually deal with it, but just because I'm feeling spunky: You are both a) wrong and b) neglecting the fact that in the pre-MoQ era, Bare Knuckle fighting was actually illegal and there was a huge and vocal movement against it. Many newspaper articles, political-style speeches, periodical articles, and sections in books were written decrying the practice as barbaric. I mentioned this already, remember? These people HATED bare fist fighting and argued every which way they could against it. None of them seem to mention the extreme danger of injury to the hand. Why? Because it wasn't as big a problem as you claim. Sorry, but your "we'd better keep it a secret or we won't have customers" conspiracy theory doesn't hold up. Further, note that, as desperately as you are trying, this is not restricted solely to Edwardian and Victorian bare knuckle fighters. It also includes centuries upon centuries of Chinese, Okinawans, &tc. Why on earth did they not stop because of the serious risk of injury? Was it a grand practical joke each generation perpetrated upon the next, much like Boy Scouts taking the new guys snipe hunting? The logic just doesn't hold.Alright, let's discuss both with an eye towards critical thinking. According to Kirk, self injury wasn't a topic covered. Okay, why? Is it because self injury never happened? I'd have a hard time believing that. Is it because it wouldn't support the premise of the book? Possibly. If someone writes a book on the virtues of TKD competition they would likely go on about the positives i.e. conditioning, discipline, self confidence etc. They probably wouldn't delve into the area where people have been killed in competitions or received life changing injuries or long term medical conditions due to repeated trauma. Wouldn't make their book very popular or profitable. And would the author(s) have considered self injury a problem during their era?
Considering that many of them were period LEO and Security and were required to operate handguns, truncheon ("intermediate weapon"), small keys, call boxes, type, and write... um.. yes, the practice apparently didn't hinder their ability at all.One would need to ask if the author(s) were concerned about the ability to manipulate a tool, such as a firearm, intermediate weapon, communication device (radio or cell phone) or small items such as keys, using refined motor skills under duress after a self injury.
Because a palm-heel to the mouth won't cut the flesh of the palm or split the targets lip and a palm-heel to the nose won't "draw the claret" just as much as a punch.Putting self injury to the side for a moment, were they concerned about blood borne pathogens during this era? Probably not considering science only discovered germs a little over a century ago. It may have been used for self defense as well as sport, but the question remains; was it the best possible option. I submit that no, it was and is not the best option. And I have detailed my reasons.